AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 1993, pursuant to Rule 32(c)(3)(D), Fed. R. Crim. P., it is hereby ORDERED that the following findings and determinations of the court be appended to the presentence investigation report in this case and shall accompany any copy of the presentence investigation report thereafter made available to the Bureau of Prisons. I rule on the Defendant's objections to the presentence investigation report as follows:

1. Through counsel, the Defendant objects to the statement in the Presentence Report in Paragraph 36 that states Defendant was a member of the Junior Black Mafia ("JBM") since 1986. Defendant states that the relevant date for his entry into the conspiracy is July 1990.

The JBM was a criminal organization which had as its primary purpose the distribution of large quantities of cocaine. Darrell Reaves worked for his brother, who was in charge of the drug distribution squad that covered the West Philadelphia area. See Testimony of Rodney Carson, 6/19/92, am session, p. 53-54. Therefore, the scope of Reaves' agreement with the JBM was that of a drug distributor. During the course of his participation in the JBM, Reaves also attended JBM meetings and on occasion wore his brother's JBM diamond initial ring. See Testimony of Rodney Carson, 6/19/92, am session, pp. 60-61 (attendance at JBM meeting); pp. 90-91 (wearing JBM ring); 101-104 (attendance at meeting before 24th and Moore shooting). In addition, Reaves participated in the shoot out at City Hall with Craig Haynes, leader of a rival gang, in March 1989. See Testimony of Rodney Carson, 6/19/92, am session, at pp. 99-100. Reaves supplied keys to a car used by one of the enforcer squads in the July 11, 1989, shooting at 24th and Moore, in which an innocent bystander was killed. See Testimony of Rodney Carson, 6/19/92, am session, at pp. 101-104. All amounts of drugs that the organization bought and sold during the period Reaves was involved with the JBM should be attributed to Reaves based on the fact that such drugs furthered the criminal activity Reaves undertook jointly with the JBM as a member of the organization and was within Reaves' agreement to act as a drug distributor for the JBM.

During the time that Reaves was involved in the activities of the JBM, the organization distributed in excess of 500 kilograms of cocaine. Earl Stewart testified that he delivered approximately 554 kilograms of cocaine to the JBM beginning in early 1988. See Testimony of Earl Stewart, 6/23/92, p. 174 (delivery of 20 kilograms of cocaine), pp. 175-76 (delivery of 50 kilograms of cocaine), p. 178 (delivery of 4 kilograms of cocaine), p. 183 (delivery of 100 kilograms of cocaine), pp. 184-87 (delivery of 150 kilograms of cocaine), pp. 197-200 (delivery of 230 kilograms of cocaine). Furthermore, Reaves was present during the meeting where Jones discussed the fact that James Cole was leaving the JBM, but that Cole was leaving Jones with the California connect, referring to drug supplier Earl Stewart. See Testimony of Rodney Carson, 4/7/92 at p. 110-11. Therefore, it was reasonably foreseeable to Reaves that Stewart would remain a drug connection for the JBM and would provide the organization with a large supply of drugs for the purpose of distribution. Based upon Reaves' attendance at JBM meetings and closeness to the organization as demonstrated by his relationship with his brother, his participation in two violent acts of the JBM, and the fact he was seen wearing a JBM initial ring, in addition to his own participation in cocaine deliveries, it was reasonably foreseeable to Reaves that the JBM was distributing in excess of 500 kilograms of cocaine.

In viewing Reaves' involvement with the JBM and having undertaken a searching and individualized inquiry into his role, this court finds that attributing approximately 564.5 kilograms of cocaine to Reaves, which places him in a base offense level of 40, will produce a sentence that accurately reflects his active role in the JBM crime organization.

8. Through counsel, the Defendant objects to the statement in the Presentence Report in Paragraph 46 which gives the Defendant a two-level enhancement for possession of a firearm during the commission of the offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).

RULING: This court finds it has the authority to grant downward departures in this area, however, the nature of this Defendant's circumstances do not warrant such a departure. This court finds Defendant's criminal history score is not exaggerated as the Defendant has been involved in crimes involving assault connected with a firearm and involving illegal drugs both possession and possession with intent to deliver.

16. Through counsel, the Defendant objects to the statement in the Presentence Report in Paragraph 63, which sets the Defendant's guideline imprisonment range at 360 months to life, based upon a offense level 42 and criminal history IV.

RULING: This court finds that based upon its findings discussed above that the proper guideline imprisonment range is 360 months to life, as the Defendant has a total offense level of 42 and a criminal history category of IV.

17. Through counsel, the Defendant argues that the court may depart downward from the applicable guideline due to the Defendant's significantly reduced mental capacity under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 or due to the Defendant's post-offense, pre-sentence recovery from drug addiction and his personal transformation (commitment to religion and an affirmation of society's laws).

RULING: This court finds it has the authority to grant downward departures in cases where the facts demonstrate such reductions are necessary. This court, however, does not find circumstances warranting a downward departure to exist in this case. For Defendant's first argument for downward departure to succeed, the defendant must demonstrate first that he had a significantly reduced mental capacity and then that this mental capacity contributed to the commission of the offense. See United States v. Frazier, 979 F.2d 1227 (7th Cir. 1992); see also U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13. Such circumstances have not been established to exist in the Defendant's case. This court has discretion to grant a departure for mitigating circumstances of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into consideration by the Guidelines, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0. It is this court's finding, however, that it will not exercise its discretion to depart based upon that Defendant's rehabilitation and personal choices.

Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.